I had it sort of explained to me now. All of our hardware comes with a license for Windows. So basically we have a mix of domains with various sccm. Then we have office on every pc and other products we license individually.
We outsource MOST of our IT support (so we don’t have to train and care less about innovation). So at the end of the day – EA costs us money because we are basically getting little out of it because of the above. That make sense? From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Burke, John Sent: February-17-16 5:32 PM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements “I have all the details if you want them but basically xxx has avoided over $35M in the past 6 years by buying out their Enterprise License Agreement. They were paying close to $6M annually for maintenance. xxxx avoided $1.7M annually and xxxx was close to $2M.” It’s pretty hard to argue with that ☹ Maybe I’ll contact one of those companies below, but I’m sure management could just say – we saved the money because we didn’t upgrade or take advantage of most of the stuff in those agreements. From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Burke, John Sent: February-17-16 3:45 PM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements That is 150% the way management works here. From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys Sent: February-17-16 3:44 PM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements Speaks “Management”, LOL. IME, the key phrase is “long-term” savings. Many management types aren’t concerned with the long-term, just the short-term so that they can get their bonuses for this quarter. I’ve seen this happen multiple times. J From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marcum, John Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:34 PM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements MS can send someone who speaks Management speak in to show them the numbers. I’d guess that they are probably very badly out of compliance right now or they would know that they are spending boat loads of money ________________________________ John Marcum MCITP, MCTS, MCSA Desktop Architect Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP ________________________________ [H_Logo] From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Burke, John Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 1:26 PM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements Powers that be don’t that and It’s not been articulated to them in a way they would understand it. I wouldn’t be able to explain it either myself why it would cost more in the long run either. I’ve not see anything documented that would hint at that either to even put the bug in their ear. From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Marcum, John Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 3:24 PM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: RE: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements +1 To take out an EA for 30,000 users would be LOTS of money. In the millions of dollars…. To not have an EA and have 30,000 users is probably going to cost triple that in the long run. ________________________________ John Marcum MCITP, MCTS, MCSA Desktop Architect Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP ________________________________ [H_Logo] From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Juelich, Adam Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:29 AM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: Re: [mssms] RE: SCCM and SA Agreements +1 What he said. Over the past few years Microsoft has changed several things with licensing that has usually made it more affordable for companies to have an EA with SA. You may be able to get this license based on FTE (Full Time Employee Equivalent) and save quite a bit of money. I'd recommend working with a company that deals with licensing specifically to help you get what you want at the best price. We work with SoftwareONE on that..... ----------------------------------------------- Adam Juelich Pulaski Community School District<http://www.pulaskischools.org> Client Management Specialist 920-822-6075 On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife <joseph.hea...@wildlife.ca.gov<mailto:joseph.hea...@wildlife.ca.gov>> wrote: In my opinion, if you’re in a company of 30,000 clients, and you’re not in an EA with SA, you’re just asking for trouble. From: listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsadmin@lists.myitforum.com>] On Behalf Of Burke, John Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:10 AM To: ms...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:ms...@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [mssms] SCCM and SA Agreements Hi folks, I’m here as part of a smaller company that just got eaten up by a large company that doesn’t have an SA with Microsoft thus, can’t upgrade to 2012 without significant cost. I’m wondering how many on this list don’t have enterprise agreements? I’m also wondering why they are so against an SA because of cost. Are they that expensive to get for say 30000 system/ users and isn’t it offset by the tools you automatically get access to via MDOP and so on? Any input would be appreciated. I’d love to be able to get back to point that all the sub companies and domains could all get on the same Tech for imaging, software deployment and so on. ________________________________ The Pulaski Community School District does not discriminate on the basis of any characteristic protected under State or Federal law. ________________________________ Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected by the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then delete it from your computer.
